From University of Kentucky Forestry dept;

OBJECTIVES: To sustain oak (Quercus spp.) dominated forests in the Central Hardwood Region, it has become apparent that land management practices must improve the resilience of the forest and its oak components to natural and anthropogenic disturbances. Successful regeneration of oak dominated systems typically requires the presence of well-developed advance reproduction prior to disturbance. However, throughout much of the eastern United States, successful regeneration of oak has been problematic due to the absence of significant number of large advance reproduction. Researchers have attributed this deficiency to the alteration of historical disturbance regimes and a reduction of oak seedling establishment and growth correlated with development of dense midstory canopies dominated by shade tolerant species. Another issue affecting forest regeneration is the spread of invasive plant species and their ability to inhibit establishment and development of native tree species. These compounding factors have left many maturing oak stands in a condition that may lead to a species compositional shift following disturbance. To reduce the vulnerability of oak dominated forests to health threats, and to enhance their resiliency following disturbance, it is important to develop desirable seedling densities in maturing stands or those where an attack from invasive exotic species is likely. Underplanting of tree seedlings, combined with overstory and/or understory control, can be an effective method for establishing advance reproduction when natural seedling densities are insufficient.

No one said it was.It doesn't matter though,the area inside the fence regenerated because it wasn't being browsed.The outside did not fail because of soil,competing vegitation,lack of light or acid rain.It failed because the deer browsed it all.That's what happens when you have poor habitat in the surrounding area.

Lmao. Youre right btb... I should choose my words better in the future. lol.

All of that can applied to Pa as well.It's no secret that oak needs some advanced regeneration and both ethe PGC and DCNR do a good job managing for those conditions.It isn't all about oak.Presently only about 40% of Pa's forests are oak/hickory.The regeneration isside that exclosure isn't oak.What causes the composition of species to shift is largely contributed to deer.Deer eat the prefered species first and when that happens the invasive,non-prefered species take over.Once that happens,it makes it tougher to get prefered regeneration.It's a vicious cycle that once gain can be blamed largely on us carrying far too many deer for too long.

"No one said it was.It doesn't matter though,the area inside the fence regenerated because it wasn't being browsed."

Because there are not deer! lmao. UNNATURAL conditions! Is that an acceptable goal? lol.

Sure it did....under NATURAL CONDITIONS with DEER existing lol. Because of the above factors and more. LIke timbering practices etc...

The exclosure would also eliminate size of cut from the equation. A small cut would be more effected by deer than a larger one. Though it doesnt make one bit of difference inside that fence in "unnatural" conditions. Those same unnatural conditions also wouldnt rule out altered growth rate due to soils which would cause some specieds to stay in the deer browse zone far longer, and also others to not recover as quickly from browsing. There is also nothing saying that the ferns werent sprayed inside the fence, but its pretty clear they werent on the outside! lol.

Yes i noticed that. But oak is the number one species dcnr & pgc are striving for, and the one most spoken of as "in decline".

Sorry, Despite the claims of dcnr PGC & audubon Im not really gettin' that, Doug....:poke:

Guess we'll have to wait and see if responsible deer management gets forced on pgc soon, whether or not Pennsylvania becomes one big meadow or solid striped maple forest with no other animals but a very few starved deer, as predicted by the doom and gloomers like Latham etc. for several decades now. lol.:barmy:

Just remember that the definition of Our current DMP is based on the economic interests of DCNR and the forestry industry definition of preferred regeneration which is based on the economical value of those preferred species rather than on the habitat value those species.. Deer can survive at high DDs in forests of beech, birch ,aspen red maple, striped maple and ash or poplar.

Whew! you had me worried there for a minute! :patriot:

Yes indeed deer can survive in non oak forests. Are you trying to say that an industry that employs 100,000+ and owns much of the land where we hunt should just let their preferred forest species disappear and just go back to raising deer in quantity so you can shoot your spike each year?

If you got less deer and they are only targeting the hardwood sprouts what is the forest going to be mainly consisted of?
Junk trees and shrubs.
You let these grow and they will block the sun that is needed for plant life.
Now you got more fast growing maples than you ever had before.
Now tell me this?
How do you plan on getting rid of the over abundance and dominant species of maples if the deer herd is reduced so much that they can now be picky about what they eat because there is no competiton over the best browse?
The maples will continue to grow without any predation on that plant from the deer and the target species now is the hardwoods and the junk trees get to grow and choke out the rest of the forest floor.


I allready told douge that and he cant understand it.

No, I am saying that if DCNR and the forestry industry want to force their land to regenerate in oak, then they should spend the money required to manage their forests so they get the desired results, instead of just reducing the herd statewide.

The DCNR does not do a good job of getting advanced oak regeneration and they admit it in their browse study and DMAP enrollment reports where they state that they have severe problems dealing with competing vegetation.

No, it didn't fail because the deer browsed it all. It failed because the deer browsed what was left which, suggest that their are other factors at play.

Maybe that photo should be explained more thoroughly.....

Inside fence, no deer
Outside fence, deer

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to see that all other factors are equall. Same canopy, same soil type , same climate, same amount of acid rain, etc etc etc ........

This is your chance to show us what you know about forestry Maverick. What "other factors" could there be? :poke:

I suppose that fence would keep bears and mountain lions out too:eek2:

I fully understand all of that Tony.One of the main reasons we have as much maple as we do is because we suppressed forest fires for much of the 20th century.Oak needs special treatments in order to get it to regenerate.You seem to have been in TL when the dog,I mean mountain lion tracks were discovered.If you live there,I can show you example of example of areas that have decent oak regeneration and show exactly why.I can also show you areas that failed to regenerate the oak and explain exactly why.Oak is just one component of the forest.In fact,oak isn't one of the primary components in the majority of forests in Pa.Presently only about 40% of our forests are oak/hickory.Many areas are northern hardwood stands and simply don't have oak.Trying to get oak to grow their would be a waste of time.

None of that changes the fact that the existing habitat can only support so mnay deer without further damage.One the habitat gets as poor as it is in many places,it takes far less deer to continue to have an impact on it.You seem to think that nothing will frow under a closed canopy.That simply isn't true.There are many species that do just fine under a closed canopy.It just so happens that oak isn't one of them.

You're wrong.I can show wuite a few areas where the advanced oak regeneration is just fine.They have a very hard time getting it in the lower elevations where the deer migrate to during bad winters.If they fence these areas or if the winters are mild,the deer spread out and use more of the available habitat,allowing those areas to regenerate.When we have just one or two bad winters following a timber sale or sheltwood cut,the cuts on the high ridgtops don't get toched and they regenerate just fine.The areas in the lowlands get hammered unless their fenced.

You guys are in such denial it's ridiculous.THAT ENTIRE AREA WAS CUT AND HALF WAS FENCED.BOTH SIDE RECIEVED THE SAME AMOUNT OF WATER,LIGHT AND ACID RAIN.The only thing the unfenced side had that the fenced side did not have was deer.It's that simple and there's hundreds of areas just like that which proves without any doubt how much of a limiting factor the deer are.

They only try to get oak regeneration where there's already an overstory of oak.They spray invasive species,do shelterwood cuts and fence the deer out where appropriate.They spend millions trying to regenerate the existing canopy of oak where appropriate.Their only solution is not just reducing the deer herd.That's one component and by you saying that they only reduce the herd is a flat out lie.

The small size of the cut outside the fenced guaranteed that nothing would grow. The vegetation in the exclosure attracted deer from the surrounding area resulting in a DD much higher than normal which in turn resulted in severe over browsing. Therefore , the results are not indicative of what would happen if you had a much larger cut that wasn't fenced.

The DCNR admits in the DMAP report that they don't have the resources to spray to control invasive species and therefore they rely on reducing the deer herd to ridiculously low DD so they can get the regeneration they prefer.

And those species that survive under a closed canopy then become part of the competing vegetation that limits oak regeneration.

LOL! I'll give you credit for creativity:lolabove::lolabove:

That fairy tale is a complete fabrication but We'll give you a C+ for the effort!

They do spay when they can.Moshannon state forests have several areas that they sprayed.With the more recent budget constraints.who knows how much they'll be able to.


Not everything is about oak regeneration.Alot of our forests are northern hardwoods and there are no oaks in a northern hardoods stand.

I'm seeing you on that Tony. I read a study on maples dominating landscapes back in the 90's, and the deer weren't mentioned as the greatest factor. Top reason stated was lack of forest fires in this century. That problem started long before the deer herd rose to it's peak densities in the NC. In burned over soils, like existed commonly before modern fire control practices, oaks had a decided edge, thriving in burned over soils where maples struggled. This kept the maples in check for centuries, until man interfered and started putting down fires quickly, before they spread. If deer herd is at low enough levels to have the luxuries of eating only preferred species such as oak, than our lower DD has actually compounded the problem...giving another competitive edge to the maples. Why don't we see controlled burns performed extensively in clearcuts...then reseeded with oak? Do this on a large scale in an area with reasonable DD, then fence a small exclosure and I bet your photo looks quite a bit different than the one a few pages back!

Years ago,the oaks thrived because of forest fires.oaks have thick bark and deep root systems so they can withstand fire better than thinner barked maple.Red maple used to actually be called swamp maple because it mostly grew in wet areas where fire couldn't get at them.It's true that fire suppression is a major reason for the dominance of red maple.More controlled burns would be nice but they're lablor intensive and there's a very short window in which they can be done.They can't do them until the snow is gone and they can't do them much into the end of April because of ground nesting birds and the damage to other young wildlife.On top of that,conditions have to be perfect.On top of that yet,up until this year,the laws were not in favor of those lighting the match.Controlled burns can be beneficial at times but there use is limited.I've walked through several controlled burns and some other invasive species like sasaphrass take to them as well.I can show you two burns in Moshannon state forest where the sasaphrass has almost completly taken over immediately after a burn.

Our lower dd's have not compounded the problem.

[QUOTE]They do spay when they can.Moshannon state forests have several areas that they sprayed.With the more recent budget constraints.who knows how much they'll be able to.[/QUOTE

But even in areas that are sprayed, unless the stand is clearcut, the shade tolerant trees in the mid-understory become the dominant canopy trees and prevent oak regeneration.


BTB, Are you claiming deer aren't attracted to the exclosures and clearcuts? I think even Doug would disagree with that.

ABSTRACT:

No one has denied that bigger cuts do better.Overwhleming the deer with a big cut is sure way to get decent regeneration.Unfortunately they can only cut so much on game lands before they'll eventually have too much pole timber.On top of that,they have to have enough diversity in age class to benefit the species that need mature forests.DCNR has different issues to deal with.They're mandated to only cut 70 acres at a time and they can only have so many timber sales within a certain distance of each other.There are several huge clearcuts within a mile or two of my house on land owned by a timber company.They cut a few of these areas when deer numbers were fairly low.The regeneration is excellent and there's more food than the deer can ever eat.I hunt the area when I have tags for that spot and do well on a consistant basis.The problem is that these clearcuts are so large and thick,it's almost impossible to get the deer out and as a result,everyone still complains that there's no deer.Timbering on a large scale does wonders but it's not always practical and it's not a longterm solution in every case unless there's enough timber to keep rotating.

Who imposes those mandates? Is it state law, and SCS requirement or is it just DCNR policy?

Couldn't tell you.I just know on the district level that they can't cut more than 70 acres at a time.I don't believe it's an SCS mandate but I could be wrong.I'm simply going by what the district forester told me.I'll ask him when I get a chance.

So you really don't know if the BOF is limited to 70 acre clearcuts. from memory I believe one cut in one of the DMAP reports was 73 acres.

I'm almost 100% positive that they are.Perhaps occassionally they can cut another 3 acres for whatever reason.Regardless,I really don't consider a 70 acre cut small.

When considering the effects of browsing on regeneration a 70 acre cut is in fact quite small when you factor in the carrying capacity of a SM of trees in the seedling/sapling stage is 60 DPSM. Since 70A is .11 SM that means a 70 acre cut could only be expected to support 6 or 7 deer. since deer from the surrounding area are known to concentrate in a clearcut, it would take a DD below 5 DPSM to prevent more than 7 deer from over browsing a 70 A clearcut.

Now you're starting to get it and at least you admit it.In poor habitat deer definately are attracted to a clearcut and that's why it's so hard to get decent regeneration in these areas.Say what you want but 70 acres is not a small piece of ground.6 or seven deer will not destroy all the browse in a 70 acre clearcut but that many can certainly effect certain species like oak is they key in on it.

Deer are attracted to a clearcut no matter how good the surrounding habitat might be. If the cut is surrounded by pole or saw timber there will be little if any preferred browse in the understory and therefore the deer will concentrate on the new growth in the clearcut. Therefore, heavy browsing on preferred species should be expected in small clearcuts of 70 acres or less.

Once again,I don't consider a 70 acre clearcut to be small.

And it doesn't matter one bit whether or not you consider a 70A clearcut to be large or small. What matters is how many deer will it take to negatively effect regeneration of preferred species in a 70 acre clearcut. Even at 8 or 9 OWDPSM , plus the effects of DMAP, in 2G they still have fence cuts in order to get oak regeneration.Furthermore, DCNR says any increase in the herd will wipe out the small gains that have been made.

So now you're agreeing that too many deer have a negative impact on the habitat.Glad to see you coming around.

I said nothing about the condition of the habitat. I referred to the effects of deer on preferred oak regeneration in a small 70A clearcut. The habitat could certainly support more than 20 DPSM on a sustainable basis.

ok,now we're only talking about oak regeneration.

That's why the PGC reduced the herd statewide. If they didn't, DCNR wouldn't have been able to get their forests certified.